Talk:Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, LLC

Untitled
Second Edit Users were able to determine whether or not to activate the PTAT functions and all recordings were done [the] on user's Hopper

1)[]PTAT and AutoHop neither infringed on the copyright nor committed breach of contract; and 2)[]although QA copies constituted copyright infringement and breach of contract, the harm from the copies was not irreparable

but the start time[,] end time of the recordings and the programming schedules of the day were determined by Dish

PTAT recordings were automatically deleted after several days (the default setting was 8 days[]).

Dish transmitted the marking data, [which] told the Hopper when the commercials began and ended, to PTAT users every day

The data [was] manually generated and examined by Dish's employees in order to assure its accuracy and quality; to do this Dish copied Fox's programs (QA copies) and used them internally.

Regardless of [the] AutoHop function, the Hopper retained all commercials until the TV program would be deleted when its retention period was expired.

Regarding the copies on the Hopper, Fox argued that Dish direct[ly] infringed on the copyright holders exclusive right to reproduction because Dish had an impermissible degree of control over the copying process of PTAT.

in which [the] prior court judged that the individual users, and not the service providers were liable for infringing copies

Fox licensed copies of its programs to other companies (e.g. Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, and Amazon) to offer its works to subscriber[s] of those companies

However, mentioning that all cop[y]ing [was] conducted on the user's PTAT without "chang[ing] hands" and that the only thing distributed from Dish to the users was the marking data, the Court denied Fox's claim.

[Therefore], Dish's secondary liability was also denied.

Dish argued its service was not identical to time-delayed or VOD, but could not show why it was not similar. The Court, however, held that the district court correctly found PTAT [to be] more akin to DVR than VOD.

Notes:

I can't access citation #4 because the website requires registration.

You can add citations to intellectual property law, copyright infringement, breach of contract, preliminary injunction, reverse engineering, fair use.

Since basically this is a victory for fair use and consumer choice, could you provide more information about what fair use is and provide references to other articles either where fair use is helpful to understanding the verdict of this case?

Maybe you could add some pictures of Dish, Fox, DVR, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Info2014bears (talk • contribs) 00:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Language question
Shouldn't "According to the courts' holdings,[1][2] the factual background was as follows." be replaced with "According to the courts' holdings,[1][2] the factual background was as follows:"? The full stop signifies an end of a full sentence, that is, a unit of meaning, but if it says "as follows" it means that there is more meaning following that sentence, so it isn't a full sentence and therefore it shouldn't end with a full stop, but rather with a colon, which is what should be used when more meaning follows a sentence. In addition, the colon better captures the sound produced when saying "as follows": the voice used by an educated reader signifies that there is more meaning to be added, a sound symbolized by the colon, whereas the sound of a full stop is different and wouldn't be used by an educated reader after "as follows". Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)